Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30801613›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Food Groups and Risk of Overweight, Obesity, and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.

Sabrina Schlesinger, Manuela Neuenschwander, Carolina Schwedhelm, Georg Hoffmann, Angela Bechthold, Heiner Boeing, Lukas Schwingshackl

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 209 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
209citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
28.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

209 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 369 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

149 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabrina SchlesingerInstitute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center (DDZ) at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Manuela NeuenschwanderInstitute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center (DDZ) at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Carolina SchwedhelmDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Nuthetal, Germany.
Georg HoffmannDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Angela BechtholdGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.
Heiner BoeingDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Nuthetal, Germany.
Lukas SchwingshacklDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Nuthetal, Germany.
German Institute of Human Nutrition · DEDeutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. · DEUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis summarizes the evidence of a prospective association between the intake of foods [whole grains, refined grains, vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes, eggs, dairy, fish, red meat, processed meat, and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs)] and risk of general overweight/obesity, abdominal obesity, and weight gain. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for prospective observational studies until August 2018. Summary RRs and 95% CIs were estimated from 43 reports for the highest compared with the lowest intake categories, as well as for linear and nonlinear relations focusing on each outcome separately: overweight/obesity, abdominal obesity, and weight gain. The quality of evidence was evaluated with use of the NutriGrade tool. In the dose-response meta-analysis, inverse associations were found for whole-grain (RRoverweight/obesity: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.96), fruit (RRoverweight/obesity: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00; RRweight gain: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97), nut (RRabdominal obesity: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.57), legume (RRoverweight/obesity: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.93), and fish (RRabdominal obesity: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.97) consumption and positive associations were found for refined grains (RRoverweight/obesity: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10), red meat (RRabdominal obesity: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.16; RRweight gain: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.26), and SSBs (RRoverweight/obesity: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.11; RRabdominal obesity: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.20). The dose-response meta-analytical findings provided very low to low quality of evidence that certain food groups have an impact on different measurements of adiposity risk. To improve the quality of evidence, better-designed observational studies, inclusion of intervention trials, and use of novel statistical methods (e.g., substitution analyses or network meta-analyses) are needed.

Indexed as

Weight GainDietHumansObesityObesity, AbdominalOverweightProspective StudiesRisk Factorsadipositydietdose-responsefood groupsmeta-analysisweight gain

Identifiers

PMID30801613
PMCPMC6416048
OpenAlexW2915685090

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.